Bush & Cheney implicated in libby trial

click

to

enlarge


















Cheney's Handwritten Notes
Implicate Bush in Plame Affair

By Jason Leopold and Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t Report

Wednesday 31 January 2007

Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by defense attorneys for former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.

Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy's stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.

But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador begs the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA?

Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.

Last week, Libby's attorney Theodore Wells made a stunning pronouncement during opening statements of Libby's trial. He claimed that the White House had made Libby a scapegoat for the leak to protect Karl Rove - Bush's political adviser and "right-hand man."




"Mr. Libby, you will learn, went to the vice president of the United States and met with the vice president in private. Mr. Libby said to the vice president, 'I think the White House ... is trying to set me up. People in the White House want me to be a scapegoat,'" said Wells.

Cheney's notes seem to help bolster Wells's defense strategy. Libby's defense team first discussed the notes - written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - during opening statements last week. Wells said Cheney had written "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others": a reference to Libby being asked to deal with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration knowingly "twisted" intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq.

However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written "this Pres." instead of "that was."

During cross-examination Tuesday morning, David Addington was asked specific questions about Cheney's notes and the reference to President Bush. Addington, former counsel to the vice president, was named Cheney's chief of staff - a position Libby had held before resigning.

"Can you make out what's crossed out, Mr. Addington?" Wells asked, according to a copy of the transcript of Tuesday's court proceedings.

"It says 'the guy' and then it says, 'this Pres.' and then that is scratched through," Addington said.

"OK," Wells said. "Let's start again. 'Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy ...' and then what's scratched through?" Wells asked Addington again, attempting to establish that Cheney had originally written that President Bush personally asked Libby to beat back Wilson's criticisms.

"T-h-i-s space P-r-e-s," Addington said, spelling out the words. "And then it's got a scratch-through."

"So it looks like 'this Pres.?'" Wells asked again.

"Yes sir," Addington said.

Thus, Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were crossed out and replaced with "that was", but are still clearly legible in the document.

The reference to "the meat grinder" was understood to be the Washington press corps, Wells said. The "protect one staffer" reference, Wells said, was White House Political Adviser Karl Rove, whose own role in the leak and the attacks on Wilson are well documented.

Furthermore, Cheney, in his directive to McClellan that day in September 2003, wrote that the White House spokesman needed to immediately "call out to key press saying the same thing about Scooter as Karl."

McClellan had publicly stated in September 2003 that Rove was not culpable in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity, nor was he involved in a campaign to discredit her husband, but McClellan did not say anything to the media that exonerated Libby, which led Cheney to write the note. A couple of weeks later, in October 2003, McClellan told members of the media that it was "ridiculous" for them to suggest Libby and Rove were involved in the leak, because he received personal assurances from both men that they had nothing to do with it.

Moreover, Wells insinuated Tuesday that Cheney's note [seemingly] implicating President Bush in the discrediting of Wilson was one of the 250 pages of emails and documents the White House failed to turn over to investigators who had been probing the leak for more than two years.

Wells insinuated that Cheney's note, because it contained a reference to "this Pres." may have been an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege. Addington told Wells that when subpoenas were first issued by the Justice Department in the fall of 2003, demanding documents and emails relating to Wilson and Plame be preserved, he was given Cheney's notes and immediately recognized the importance of what the vice president had written. Addington said he immediately entered into a "discussion" with Gonzales and Terry O'Donnell, Cheney's counsel, about the note, but Addington did not say whether it was turned over to investigators in the early days of the probe.

Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for the leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to do with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the case against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush may be the most important fact that has emerged from the trial thus far.

Addington revealed during his testimony Monday that in June 2003 there were internal discussions - involving President Bush and Vice President Cheney - about declassifying for specific reporters a portion of the highly classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate as a way to counter Wilson's criticisms against the administration. That portion purportedly showed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger to use for building an atomic bomb - a claim that Wilson had debunked when he personally traveled to Niger to investigate it a year earlier.

In late June or early July 2003, "a question was asked of me - by Scooter Libby: Does the president have authority to declassify information?" Addington told jurors Monday, in response to a question by defense attorney William Jeffress. "And the answer I gave was, 'Of course, yes. It's clear the president has the authority to determine what constitutes a national security secret and who can have access to it.'"

President Bush signed an executive order in 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The order was signed on March 23, four days after the start of the Iraq War and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.

-------

Truthout will publish a follow-up to this story, with opinions from legal experts on possible implications of these latest developments for the White House.

ACLU files suit for extraordinary rendition victim Khaled El-Masri

Khaled El-Masri~Extraordinary Rendition Suit


STATEMENT

WASHINGTON - I have come to America seeking three things: an acknowledgement that the United States government is responsible for kidnapping, abusing and rendering me to a CIA “black site” prison; an explanation as to why I was singled out for this treatment; and an apology, because I am an innocent man who has never been charged with any crime.

BIOGRAPHY
Khaled El-Masri is a German citizen who resides near Neu Ulm, Germany. El-Masri was born in Kuwait in 1963 to Lebanese parents. He moved to Germany in 1985 to escape the Lebanese War. He became a German citizen in 1995, married in 1996 and has six young children. He is a carpenter by trade and prior to his abduction was employed as a car salesman. El-Masri was detained from December 31, 2003 through May 28, 2004 in Macedonia and Afghanistan where he was held in the CIA prison known as the "Salt Pit." Currently El-Masri is unable to find employment

















Air transport services company could be involved in El-Masri suit

Premier Executive Transport Services, located in Dedham, MA . PETS was the owner of the Boeing business jet 737-7ET, formerly registered with the Federal Aviation Authority as N313P and now registered as N4476S. The jet was used to transport Khaled El-Masri from Skopje, Macedonia to detention and interrogation in Afghanistan. The registration of the jet was changed shortly after media reports identified the aircraft's involvement in the CIA's rendition program. The company remains on the register of companies in Massachusetts.

Democracy Now has done excellent coverage on this German citizen of Lebanese descent, which includes a video of Khalied El-Masri giving testimony of his experiences with the CIA and the secret prison in Afghanistan.

Ari Fleischer' tiny cajone's, and WMD's

Fleischer then and now: There's a telling difference

Once an unwavering administration foot soldier, the ex-White House spokesman gives an insider's account.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
January 30, 2007

WASHINGTON — As White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer was known for staying strictly on message, the public face of an administration reluctant to acknowledge mistakes or internal rifts.

But Fleischer was behind a different microphone Monday: He spent hours testifying in federal court on what it was like behind the scenes in 2003 when a key part of the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq disintegrated.

During more than three hours of testimony that offered a rare glimpse inside the usually secretive Bush White House, Fleischer showed little of the unyielding discipline that defined his tenure as press secretary. He pointed fingers at a former colleague, acknowledged frustration at how powerless he often was to sway the media, and described in detail the frantic White House efforts to contain a spreading public relations debacle.

Fleischer was the main prosecution witness Monday in the ongoing trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of lying to federal authorities investigating the White House's role in exposing the identity of a clandestine CIA officer.

At one point Fleischer described the dismay he felt as it became increasingly clear that the White House could no longer back one of President Bush's most alarming remarks in his 2003 State of the Union speech — that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Africa.

Sixteen Words Video

























Sixteen Words and the Trial of Scooter Libby

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Report

Tuesday 23 January 2007

Four years ago this month, President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The intelligence those sixteen words were based upon turned out to be crude forgeries. Evidence collected by journalists and various legislative committees over the years suggests that a cabal of White House officials were fully aware that the intelligence was suspect, but allowed its inclusion in the State of the Union address because it would help the administration win support for the war.





Smoking Gun Video
.
.
.
.

Time to put out the distress signal

Bush Issues New Warning To Iran On Iraq
President Says U.S. Will "Respond Firmly" If Iran Escalates Military Actions In Iraq





WASHINGTON, Jan. 29, 2007

President Bush's new warning to Iran was the latest move in a bitter and more public standoff between the U.S. and Iran. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)




(AP) President Bush said Monday that "we will respond firmly" if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens.

Mr. Bush's warning was the latest move in a bitter and increasingly public standoff between the United States and Iran. The White House expressed skepticism about Iran's plans to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq. The United States has accused Iran of supporting terrorism in Iraq and supplying weapons to kill American forces.

"If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and — or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Mr. Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio.

US~Israel preparing for war with Iran?

Israel to buy US bomb kits for $100M

By STEVE WEIZMAN

JERUSALEM

The Israeli air force has decided to buy smart munitions kits from the Chicago-based Boeing aerospace company for an estimated $100 million, Israeli defense officials said Monday.

The Jerusalem Postdaily said the planned purchase was for the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, which converts conventional 2,000 pound bombs into satellite-guided, precision weapons.

Defense officials said the acquisition was meant to replenish stores used up in last summer's monthlong war against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and increase future stock levels.

The Jerusalem Post said the purchase would not require Congressional approval, as it was the exercise of a previously approved purchase option.

Congress is expected on Monday to receive a preliminary State Department report on whether Israel misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that the report would say Israel may have violated agreements with the United States by its use of American-supplied cluster munitions during last year's war.

The paper described disagreement among midlevel officials at the Defense Department and the State Department, with some in both departments arguing that Israel violated Israel violated U.S. prohibitions on using cluster munitions in populated areas
. Others in both departments argued that the weapons were used in self-defense to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks and that, at worst, only a technical violation may have occurred.

The Israeli army has said all weapons it uses "are legal under international law and their use conforms with international standards."

Cluster bombs are typically used against tanks and explode upon impact with steel. In the conflict in Lebanon, the shells were fired into urban and rural areas where Israel thought Hezbollah guerrillas might be hiding. Many hit the ground or pavement and did not explode. Since the war ended, several people have been killed by exploding bomblets.

Israel said it was forced to hit civilian targets in Lebanon because Hezbollah fighters were using villages as bases for rocket launchers aimed at Israel. More than 1,000 Lebanese, including at least 250 Hezbollah guerrillas, were killed in the war, while 120 Israeli soldiers and 39 civilians were killed.





















U.S: Israel may have misused cluster bombs

POSTED: 1:41 p.m. EST, January 29, 2007

Story Highlights• State Department tells Congress Israel may have violated arms-import pact
• Rights groups, Arab governments criticized use of cluster bombs
• Volley of six cluster shells can scatter 4,000 bombs in square kilometer
• 30 deaths from leftover bombs recorded since last year's war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Israel's use of U.S.-made cluster bombs in last year's war in Lebanon may have violated agreements with the United States governing their use, the State Department said Monday.

"There may -- likely could have been some violations," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The State Department has sent a report to Congress laying out the preliminary findings, he said.

Agreements under the Arms Export Control Act govern use of munitions sold by the United States. Those agreements are confidential.

There is no international treaty in effect regulating cluster bombs, according to Human Rights Watch, but their use is restricted under international humanitarian law. Nations are expected to clean up areas where they used cluster bombs once a conflict ends.

Enormous collateral damage and civilian casualties from Israel's war with Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon caused an outcry by rights groups and Arab governments about the use of cluster bombs and prompted the U.S. investigation.

Cluster munitions used in Lebanon were fired from artillery shells, with each shell carrying more than 600 of the cluster bombs, according to Human Rights Watch. The larger shell bursts open near the ground, scattering the bomblets.

Human Rights Watch reported those used by Israel in Lebanon were usually fired in a volley of six shells, scattering almost 4,000 bomblets on a square kilometer.

The United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center of South Lebanon estimates 1 million unexploded cluster munitions remain scattered in southern Lebanon. The center estimates they'll be cleared by December of this year.

As of January 18, 30 people have been killed by the unexploded munitions in Lebanon, the center reports.

Hezbollah also used cluster munitions during the war, Human Rights Watch says, firing Chinese-made cluster rockets into Israel.

McCormack said that Israel cooperated with the investigation but that the U.S. also used other sources of information.

He stressed that the findings were preliminary. Any further investigation or action against the Israeli government would be determined in consultations with Congress, he said.

"We do take our obligations under the law seriously," McCormack said, adding the fact the Bush administration sent the report to Congress was evidence of that.

The Associated Press reported that Washington banned the sale of cluster bombs to Israel in 1982 after finding the Israeli military misused them during the war in Lebanon that year. That ban lasted six years.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, acknowledged Israel's cooperation with the investigation and defended Israel's use of the weapons.

"Israel provided a detailed response to the administration's request for information on our use to halt Hezbollah's unprovoked ... fire against our civilian population centers. Israel suffered heavy casualties in these attacks and acted as any government would in exercising its right for self-defense," he said.

In Jerusalem, Israel Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mark Regev told Reuters: "Israel takes the concerns raised by the U.S. very seriously. In our response, we have been as detailed, as forthcoming and transparent as possible."

Dubya's misleading energy policies and the good folks at Dupont

George W. Bush speaks at the Dupont Theater

Strengthening America's Energy Security and Improving the Environment

11:01 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for coming. (Applause.) Thanks for such a warm welcome here in Delaware. I thank you, for those of you who stayed up for the speech last night, thanks. (Laughter.) If you're 60 and over, it's a little late to stay up, I understand. But it's exciting always to go in front of the Congress. And I appreciate the good Senator, Tom Carper, for joining us, and thanks for bringing along Martha, a DuPont alumna, by the way. (Applause.)

But first I want to thank all the good folks at DuPont for really leading with your brains. And as the Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, told me coming in -- he said, when he was -- see, he's like a graduate from MIT, which -- so he's a smart guy and I'm the President. But anyway -- (laughter.) It's the way it works sometimes, you know. (Applause.) He said, when he went to MIT, they looked at DuPont as a case study on how to make sure science and practical applications came together. And that's what I saw today -- I'm going to spend -- as I said, I'm going to spend a little time talking about. And so I want to thank -- Chad, thank you and the team for inviting me, and all the good employees for taking time to come and visit.



And yadayda bush*t etc, but here are some exerpts:



Now, the good news is, is that we're on the verge of some unbelievable technological breakthroughs. At this company you've got 2,500 scientists; some of the smartest people in our country work here, all trying to develop new technologies -- this isn't anything new for DuPont, by the way, this is like what you've been doing for a long time -- but trying to develop new technologies to help us solve this problem. And that's why I've come here. You're employing the best minds possible to address the problem of economic and national security and environmental issues, because we're dependent on oil. And the American people have got to know that you're making progress.



Part of my request to Congress is going to be, we want to put $2.7 billion of your money to help concerns and smart people develop new ways of powering our homes and powering our automobiles. We're making some progress. Let me just share a couple of things that we're doing. One, we're spending a lot of your money on clean coal technology. The reason why is we've got a lot of coal. If you want to be less dependent on oil from overseas -- and by the way, we import about 60 percent of our oil today. In 1985, it was 27 percent of our oil. So we're becoming exponentially more dependent



We're also spending money on wind and solar. As a matter of fact, I saw your solar panel expert. And we spent a little time on -- here's the dream. The dream is, some day the technology will be such that you'll be -- your house will become a little power generator. And if you use -- if you got excess electricity generated by solar, you'll be able to feed it back into your grid. Is that possible? Yes, it's possible. As a matter of fact, the advance in solar technology has been quite dramatic. There's more advance still to be done, which requires your money being spent to help concerns develop new solar energy.



Just a couple of things that are happening that are interesting: One, we began a hydrogen initiative that -- where a lot of smart folks are beginning to research whether or not we can power automobiles by hydrogen. We think it's possible. But it's not going to be possible until I'm 75, which is probably 15 years from now. Your children may very well likely be driving in automobiles powered by hydrogen -- the waste product which is water, by the way. But something has got to happen in the interim. I mean, we can't wait, for economic reasons or national security reasons, for hydrogen to kick in. In other words, it's still a dream.



And so we're pushing two interesting types of technologies: one, battery technologies -- lithium ionic batteries. For all you history majors out there, let me put it to you this way -- (laughter) -- one of these days you're going to plug your car into your garage, and you're going to be able to drive the first 20 miles on electricity, and your car is not going to have to look like a golf cart. (Laughter.) And that technology is coming. And we're spending money to encourage that kind of technology.



And to couple that in order to make sure we're 20 percent less dependent in 10 years, I also proposed to Congress that we change the fuel efficiency standards in our automobiles. Something that the American people don't know about is that during my administration, we changed the CAFE standard for trucks. And basically, we said we're going to take the weight of each type of truck and set a fuel standard specific to weight. It's a little hard to explain, except for it has achieved a lot of conservation efficiencies. We need to do the same thing for cars.



Secondly, we're going to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles as soon as they hit the market. I think that will give some surety to those who have invested in new technologies to know that the federal government is going to be a purchaser, when commercially available. In other words, we're not going to waste your taxpayers' money, but we're going to participate in a new market. I don't think you want us buying above market. I think you want us to be wise about how we spend it. (Laughter.)


It is interesting to note that most of these technologies have allready been developed.
I'll just concentrate on some of the automotive concepts for now, and the fate
of any developements that interfered with the profits and motives of the Industrial War Complex aka Corporate Government.












Rob Lechner looks under the hood of one of the Lodi Electric Utility's 2001 Toyota Rav 4's on Thursday afternoon. The electric cars are completely powered from solar panels placed on the roof of a docking station. Once the cars get their full-powered one-hour charge, to drive 100 miles until empty, the excess solar energy goes back into the grid. (Brian Feulner/News-Sentinel)

Who killed the electric car?

The Lodi Electric Utility is highlighting the tragic fate of the first electric cars by showing the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" on Monday at 6 p.m. at Hutchins Street Square.

"This is a nice opportunity to talk about alternative fuel vehicles," said Rob Lechner, manager of customer service and programs for the utility. "This keeps the issue in the forefront for the community."

For the last five years, the utility has leased three electric cars from Toyota. The RAV4-EVs are used to drive to meetings and for meter reader routes.

Lechner added the vehicles have had virtually no maintenance problems. And the utility's cars run on solar energy, not fossil fuel-generated electricity.



And another electric car that suffered the same fate...





















Fans of GM Electric Car Fight the Crusher
Activists, Auto Buffs Stage Vigil to Save EV1

And the Toyota ES3 Diesel Electric suffered the same fate

Toyota Displays ES3 Concept Car at Motor Show in Frankfurt


Toyota exhibited the extremely fuel-efficient ES3 concept car at the International Frankfurt Motor Show 2001 in September. The ES3, which stands for "Eco Spirit cubic," is a four-seat vehicle that combines many of Toyota's innovative environmental technologies aimed at achieving ultra-high fuel efficiency, low CO2 emissions and easy recycling.

The ES3's outstanding fuel economy derives from its highly efficient powertrain, combined with a light and aerodynamic body. A Stop & Go powertrain management system turns off the engine when the vehicle is stationary in traffic and provides instant restart. The system allows for reduced engine workload, resulting in a reduction in fuel consumption. The ES3's curb weight is only 700 kg, which is achieved through the use of an aluminum body with plastic outer panels that is both strong and light. Further weight reductions are achieved by intelligent design of interior components, ranging from the instrument panel to seat cushions, and through the use of lighter brake calipers, suspension parts, wheels and brakes. The ES3's raised floor height and smoothed underfloor surfaces raise the amount of airflow under the car and increase airflow speed, contributing to the ES3's outstanding aerodynamics and exceptional stability at high speeds.

In developing the ES3, all aspects of recycling were taken into full consideration with special emphasis being placed on the development of materials that are compatible with a variety of recycling methods. As a new type of material, Toyota developed a biodegradable plastic made from starch extracted from sweet potatoes and other plants. This plastic was combined with natural fibers for use in the ES3's pillar garnish and other interior parts. In addition to recylability, the ES3 is free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Also, the reduction of the amount of lead used in light bulbs, paint and other items significantly decreases the overall volume of lead used in the ES3.

A message from Toyota


Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide in the spring of 2003. Therefore, Toyota will no longer take orders for the RAV4 EV.


Toyota remains committed to developing an "Eco Vehicle," one that will have a minimal impact on the environment. Toyota believes that in order to have a positive environmental impact, a large number of consumers must embrace the technology. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must meet the lifestyle needs of, and be affordable to, the mass market. Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.

In addition to overall customer acceptance, technical issues tied to electric vehicles remain a major hurdle. Industry practice regards batteries to be at the end of their useful life when capacity decreases to 80% of original capacity. A battery's capacity is the amount of charge that it holds, and is commonly measured by the range of the vehicle. It is cost-prohibitive to replace an EV battery. The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle.

Although Toyota's electric vehicle sales have proved disappointing, Toyota was able to leverage valuable technology from the development and sales of the RAV4-EV. For example, some of the technology involved in the Hybrid Synergy Drive system on the next generation Prius came from the RAV4-EV. Toyota was the first company to introduce a hybrid vehicle to the mass market in 1997. Now, the second generation Prius is coming out. It's larger, faster, gets better fuel mileage than before, and is 90 percent cleaner for smog-forming emissions than the average vehicle on the road. It is affordable and appealing to the mainstream market, which should result in an expansion in the number of consumers driving cleaner vehicles. Toyota has sold more than 100,000 hybrid vehicles worldwide, and 52,000 Prius hybrids in the United States.

Please be assured, Toyota will continue to ensure that dealers capable of servicing RAV4 EVs are located in each major metropolitan area in California throughout the 5-year powertrain warranty period of your vehicle.

We understand that many of our customers and supporters may have questions about the discontinuation of RAV4 EV production and sales. The linked Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) will provide answers to many of these questions.

Once again, thank you for your interest in the RAV4 EV.

Just to be a little bit critical about this Neoconservative ideologue who calls him self "Commander in Chief". Wouldn't it be a good idea to talk about conservation of energy and maybe a concept known as "Free Enterprise", so that "We The People" can participate in the developement and manufacture of alternative energy and advanced vehihicle concepts?

LEST WE FORGET THE "O" WORD

Do you get the picture?

The Constitution, Bush, SOTU and PNAC

Looks like George W Bush's SOTU speech was based on the same old agenda that originated with the help of the PNAC, and now includes the use of mercenaries in the Iraq war. A war that includes the occupation of Iraq for many years, which has actually been known by the Neocon ideologs since it's inception.


George W Bush in his State of the Union speech said something about a civilian reserve corps. It was his statement, but from an address that employed four speech writers.

Quote:
"A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time."


A State of the Union speech that echoed the ideas put forth in a letter to congress from the PNAC on increasing US Ground Forces from Jan. 28, 2005.

Project For The New American Century: letter to congress



Among the signers of this letter was General Barry McAffrey, and of course William Kristol.


Four months later: Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) has this to say.

In June of 2005, he surveyed Iraq on behalf of U.S. Central Command and wrote an optimistic report afterwards. In it, he says the U.S. senior military leadership team is superb and predicts the insurgency will reach its peak from January-to-September 2006, allowing for U.S. force withdrawls in the late summer of 2006. A year later, however, after visiting Iraq again, his assessment was grim: "Iraq is abject misery...I think it's a terribly dangerous place for diplomats and journalists and contractors and Iraqi mothers. Trying to go about daily life in that city is a real nightmare for these poor people." He called Abu Ghraib "the biggest mistake that happened so far.". In an official memorandum, McCaffrey nevertheless expressed optimism about the operation's longer term future: "The situation is perilous, uncertain, and extreme — but far from hopeless. The U.S. Armed Forces are a rock. This is the most competent and brilliantly led military in a tactical and operational sense that we have ever fielded.... There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq. Our aim must be to create a viable federal state under the rule of law which does not: enslave its own people, threaten its neighbors, or produce weapons of mass destruction. This is a ten year task. We should be able to draw down most of our combat forces in 3-5 years. We have few alternatives to the current US strategy which is painfully but gradually succeeding. This is now a race against time. Do we have the political will, do we have the military power, will we spend the resources required to achieve our aims?" His assessment noted several negative areas as well as very positive areas in the struggle for democracy in the country.




Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution



At the end paragraph of the Jan. 28, 2005 PNAC letter congress is asked to provide military manpower to carry out foreign policy abjectives...Hmmm

Quote

"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world."

Excerpt from Digital Destiny

By: Jeff Chester

Introduction: Communications at the
Crossroads

We are on the eve of the emergence of the most powerful media and communications system ever developed. A flood of compelling video images propelled by the interactivity of the Internet will be delivered through digital TVs, PCs, cell phones, digital video recorders, iPods, and countless mobile devices. These technologies will surround us, immerse us, always be on, wherever we are—at home, work, or play.We will have access, if we can afford it, to an ever-expanding array of news, entertainment, and communications from around the world. Much of the programming will be personalized, selected by us with the help of increasingly sophisticated, but largely invisible, technologies that will “sense” or “know” our interests, dislikes, and habits. Information about our travels—in cyber- and real space—will be collected and stored, most often without our awareness. Such data will be the basis of computerized profiles that generate in a flash commercial pitches honed to precisely fit our psychology and behavior.



















A Citizen's Guide to Digital Democracy


See Bill Moyers speak on the public interest in the Broadband era (and also hear praise for Digital Destiny)

Bill Moyers at NCMR 2007 -- PART 1


Bill Moyers at NCMR 2007 -- PART 2

State of the Union according to Dubya

Would you buy a used car from this man? It's like: Wow....We have no probleems anymore. Dubya has promised us everything that he couldn't do before, and admitted all the things that didn't exist, like Global Warming, and has solutions for them too. He even talked about cars that run on wood chips, like that would be a new invention. He mentioned enterprise, but not free enterprise. If we had that we would have cars that could run on anything combustable, and effeciency that would reduce pollution as well as oil dependency.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but Dubya doesn't really even have those. It is obvious from past experience that we're hearing a pack of lies.
The only sensible person that I saw in the audience was Obama, who set there scribbling notes. Why in the hell would Pelosi stand up and applaud while the Gerbil is crowing about no failure in Iraq?
BTW...Did anyone else look at the expression on Shug's face? I still have cold chills, kinda like when I saw that movie...The Alien..}-;

There is something near the end of this address, that also chills me a bit, and that is Dubya's reference to hiring civilians to serve abroad when America needs them.

Quote:

"A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time."

A mercenary army?

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.
And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.
Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we're not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations. We're working with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government.
The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. (Applause.) With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. (Applause.)
We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur. (Applause.)

Former President Bush Blames ‘Bloggers’ for ‘Ugly’ Political Climate

Former President George H.W. Bush said the current political climate has "gotten so adversarial that it’s ugly." Asked to offer an explanation for why there is this "incivility," Bush pinned the blame on bloggers. "It’s probably a little worse now given electronic media and the bloggers and all these kinds of things," he said. Watch it:

~VIDEO~


Also, Bush revealed that he enjoys using “the email” but lamented that his son, President George W. Bush, cannot for fear that the emails would get subpoenaed. Bush worried that presidents who used email would be forced to prove "that you were telling the truth and all this stuff."

Dubya Prepares for State of the Union Speech

In the upcoming State of the union speech on Tuesday, George hopes to impress the Democrats to achieve compromise. I can well imagine that Nancy Pelosi will be impressed. Heh heh, but not quite as much as will Steney Hoyer.

There will be four speech writers working on this project, including Cheneys head speech writer. There was no disclosure of the details and no mention of soaring rhetoric, But it was said that the president was not much interested in “flowery language.”

At this point, Mr. Bush is well into rehearsing. By Friday, he had already had several run-throughs in the family theater of the White House, with officials including Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, listening in.

Yes sir ladies and gents, prepare to be impressed, and know that he speaks from the gut. We're liable to hear anything but meat frying and money jingling.

Super Bacteria linked to US combat hospitals in Iraq

Wired to report US unwittingly evolved superpathogen in Iraqi combat hospitals


John Byrne
Published: Sunday January 21, 2007
Print This Email This


A drug-resistant bacteria that is infecting wounded US soldiers in Iraq -- and has spread to civilian hospitals in parts of Europe -- accidentally evolved in US military hospitals in Iraq, Wired Magazine will report in a massive expose on Monday, RAW STORY has learned.

The several thousand word expose is set to bring uncomfortable new light to the bacteria Acinetobacter baumannii that Pentagon officials previously said was likely a product of Iraqi soil.

"By creating the most heroic and efficient means of saving lives in the history of warfare, the Pentagon had accidentally invented a machine for accelerating bacterial evolution and was airlifting the pathogens halfway around the world," the magazine reveals.

The story will go live online early Monday, newsroom sources say, and appear in February's print edition.

DEVELOPING...




"Coming to a Hospital near you"


The Battle over multiple drug resistant microbes: MRSA, Acinetobacter, C. Difficile, etc. "Irresponsible medicine"
Early this year an outbreak of MDR Acinetobacter Baumannii swept over Arizona, 236 cases in just two months. It was reported by the state disease monitoring systems, but ignored on the national level.

Now dubbed "Supergerms", they spread without warning and seemingly without official notices since they are infections instead of diseases. The government is taking advantage of this technicality.

An ICU nurse at Bethesda Naval in Washington DC leaves work feeling under the weather. Within 24 hours she is in a community hospital, intubated, with Acinetobacter Baumannii. It was determined that the bacteria were acquired from a patient at work. She succumbed to the infection quickly and with no fan fare. The story went silent.

At Brook Army Medical Center in Texas a soldier fights for his life, as his combat wounds are made worse by infections the doctors can't seem to handle. The only reason his story is known is that his civilian girl friend speaks up for him.

This outbreak that is spreading nation wide is largely due to the war in Iraq, and because of a legal technicality in reporting, the military and CDC will not discuss it publicly.

Barack Obama speaks for the multitudes

Who Is Senator Barak Obama and What Does He Believe?



Barack Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii to a white mother from Kansas and black father from Kenya who met while attending the University of Hawaii. His mother Anna, as Obama describes her in his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, was "a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism."

His father, also named Barack (Swahili for "One who is blessed by God," and perhaps via Arabic and Semitic roots related to the Hebrew baruch, "blessed") Obama, left his rural Luo-speaking village and his Muslim father to become an "agnostic" and study economics abroad. His son was two when the elder Barack left the boy and his mother to return to Harvard University and then to Kenya, where he became a globe-traveling economist for the government.

When young Obama was six, his mother married an Indonesian oil manager, a "non-practicing Muslim," and the family moved to Jakarta, where his half-sister Maya was born. In this exotic Islamic country, wrote Obama's good friend, the liberal lawyer and best-selling novelist Scott Turow, Barack Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school."

At age 10 Obama was sent back to Hawaii to be raised largely by his middle-class white maternal grandparents, and to attend the prestigious Punahou Academy. For only one month of his life, when he was 10, Obama was visited by and talked with his biological father. During adolescence he struggled to comprehend his mixed racial and cultural identity and experimented with marijuana and cocaine. Obama wrote about this in his memoir, he told Turow, because "I wanted to show how and why some kids, maybe especially young black men, flirt with danger and self-destruction."

Obama attended Occidental College in California and then Columbia University in New York City. After graduating in 1983 with a degree in Political Science, he applied for work as a community organizer with groups across the United States while working as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation. One small group of 20-odd churches in Chicago offered him a job helping residents of poor, predominantly black Far South Side neighborhoods. He moved to Chicago and in June 1985 became Director of the Developing Communities Project, working for the next three years on efforts that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup. In 1986, after meeting his Kenyan half-sister Auma, he traveled to Africa and sat at the grave of his father who had died in a Nairobi traffic accident four years earlier.

In 1988 Obama enrolled at Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1991. While there, he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. From April to November 1992, he served as the Director of "Illinois Project VOTE," which registered approximately 150,000 mostly poor, mostly Democratic voters in Chicago's Cook County before that year's presidential election. The following year he became a litigator of voting rights and employment cases with the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., where he remains a Counsel today. In 1993 he also became a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, another position he still holds.

Chinese ground-based ballistic missile success

Concern grows over China's satellite-killing missile test

By Chris Buckley
Reuters
Friday, January 19, 2007; 3:39 PM

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing insisted Friday it was opposed to an arms race in space after Japan and Britain joined a chorus of concern over a satellite-killing missile test by China -- the first known experiment of its type in more than 20 years.

The United States says China used a ground-based ballistic missile to shoot apart an aging weather satellite on January 11, scattering debris that could damage other satellites and raising risks of escalating military rivalry in outer space.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman declined to confirm or deny the incident, but said Beijing wanted no arms race in space.

"I can't say anything about the reports. I really don't know; I've only seen the foreign reports," Liu Jianchao told Reuters.

"What I can say is that, as a matter of principle, China advocates the peaceful use of space and opposes the weaponisation of space, and also opposes any form of arms race," he said.

U.S. concerns were quickly echoed by Australia and Canada, and then Friday by Japan, which has become increasingly concerned about its giant neighbor's rising military strength.

Joe Wilson on the rule of law

"I have great faith in a system of governance that is based on the rule of law, and as much confidence in the person of Pat Fitzgerald as I have in anybody outside my wife. The fact that the administration is now attempting to politicize the US attorney offices is to me a clear indication that they have come to fear the rule of law. More than anything the administration has done over the past six years, this act of firing US Attornies and replacing them without Senate confirmation is a subversion of everything we hold dear as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, as Americans. Our very republic is under attack."

MSNBC

The Lieberman Factor

JAN 12: You might have heard that there actually is some Democratic support for Mr. Bush's plan to ecalate troop levels in Iraq. Countdown brings you an exhaustive list of exactly who those democratics are.

The Commander in Chief, The Decider, The Educator

Hey Joe, get me a couple more of those special tranquilizers, I'm getting ready to do another educational presentation of the way forward in Iraq


PRESIDENT BUSH: Well - listen, I fully understand the president has got to convince the American people it's worth it and that we can succeed, and no doubt - and I've spent a lot of time during my presidency talking to the American people and educating the American people about the stakes and what we're trying to get done.


I'm trying to do my very best to explain to people why success is vital. In other words, people have got to understand that if we decide and we grow weary of - and there's a lot of war weariness in this country, and I fully understand that -- and we say, okay, well, let's just leave; we can leave in stages, but let's just leave, or let's just pull back and hope that the Iraqis are able to settle their business, the consequences of that decision will be disastrous for the future of this country. And therefore, we got to keep working on ways to succeed, as far as I'm concerned.


And so the - Iraq is - Jim, is - must be viewed in a context just larger than that single battlefield. It must be viewed in context of how Iran reacts. It must be viewed in the context of democracies like Lebanon and the Palestinian territories - all being - these young democracies, by the way, being attacked by the same type of extremists that are attacking the democracy in Iraq.


It's important for the American people to understand it is al-Qaida that is doing a lot of these spectacular bombings. Why? Because they want a safe haven. They still have ambitions about hurting America. The very same guys - type of guys that flew those airplanes on September 11th are still the ones that are battling against a young democracy in Iraq.

This is what presidents do; they take time, they listen. I listened to a lot of folks, a lot of good, decent folks, and came up with this answer as the best way to succeed.

This great poster is from Originaldo's Celebrebrity Swapshots

, a wonderful collection of celebrity spoofs. It is from the Shock and Awe period of the Iraq invasion, but seems somewhat relevent to the present day.

Dubya is currently claiming to be both the commander in chief and educator of the American people. He really feels that he is 100% correct, and that "We The People", who protesteth so loudly, will be convinced that he is right after hearing his eloquent presentation of the way forward. He also believes that the Iraqi people should be grateful for what he believes to be "The Liberation of Iraq", and that Pappa Bush will give him one more clean shirt before putting him in an institution.

~OUT OF IRAQ~A Practical Plan for Withdrawal

A Blueprint for Leaving Iraq Now

by George S. McGovern and William R. Polk

Following is an excerpt from the new book, Out of Iraq, by George S. McGovern and William R. Polk. This excerpt was published in the October edition of Harper's Magazine and was entered into the Congressional Record by Rep. James McGovern.

Staying in Iraq not an option. Many Americans who were among the most eager to invade Iraq now urge that we find a way out. These Americans include not only civilian "strategists'' and other "hawks'' but also senior military commanders and, perhaps most fervently, combat soldiers. Even some of those Iraqis regarded by our senior officials as the most pro-American are determined now to see American military personnel leave their country. Polls show that as few as 2 percent of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq. We must acknowledge the Iraqis' right to ask us to leave, and we should set a firm date by which to do so.

We suggest that phased withdrawal should begin on or before December 31, 2006, with the promise to make every effort to complete it by June 30, 2007.

Withdrawal is not only a political imperative but a strategic requirement. As many retired American military officers now admit, Iraq has become, since the invasion, the primary recruiting and training ground for terrorists. The longer American troops remain in Iraq, the more recruits will flood the ranks of those who oppose America not only in Iraq but elsewhere.

Amendment to previous artical

If CBS can do it, so can I...LOLROTF

I have found that much more of the last paragraph was deleted. I haven't checked the rest of the artical. None of this paragraph was rewritten, but most of it was deleted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the complete last paragraph...also what was on the video yesterday:

PELLEY: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?

BUSH: I'm gonna have to keep explaining. That's why I'm doing this interview with you. And I gotta keep explaining, one, the consequences of failure, that failure in Iraq will affect the security of the people here in the United States. And secondly, that we can succeed. And the best way to succeed at this point in time is to increase troops in Baghdad to stop the sectarian violence so that a political process, an economic process . . . so that the will of the 12 million people that voted in Iraq can be realized. Scott, sometimes you're the commander-in-chief, sometimes you're the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war. And I've just gotta continue to take my message to the people and to explain to them this is a well-thought-out decision that is in the interests of the today's generation of Americans and tomorrow's generation of Americans. What happens in the Middle East matters to the security of this country. We learned that lesson on September the 11th. The stakes are very high, and we have got not only to stay engaged diplomatically, but we've gotta succeed in chasing down terrorists as well as helping young democracies survive. What's interesting is that you got a young democracy in Lebanon being challenged. I believe there ought to be a Palestinian democracy. It is being challenged by militants. A young democracy in Afghanistan and a young democracy in Iraq, all being challenged by radicals and extremists. And they may seem like disparate elements, but they share the same vision and same philosophy, and they have the same desire to inflict damage, particularly on the United States of America. I think it's interesting that in the midst of all the troubles, that there are people who are actively fighting a form of government which is beneficial to people, and that's democracy. We are in an ideological struggle, and it's a really classic ideological struggle, and Iraq is part of it. And it's very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And it changed to this on the video....

PELLEY: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?

BUSH: I'm gonna have to keep explaining. That's why I'm doing this interview with you.
Scott, sometimes you're the commander-in-chief, sometimes you're the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war.
We are in an ideological struggle, and it's a really classic ideological struggle, and Iraq is part of it. And it's very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.

At Libby Trial, Power Players Face Uncomfortable Spotlight

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 15, 2007; Page A01

When Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff goes on trial Tuesday on charges of lying about the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity, members of Washington's government and media elite will be answering some embarrassing questions as well.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's case will put on display the secret strategizing of an administration that cherry-picked information to justify war in Iraq and reporters who traded freely in gossip and protected their own interests as they worked on one of the big Washington stories of 2003.

CBS CHANGES THE VIDEO OF CAMP DAVID INTERVIEW

Well...The controlled media, which includes CBS has altered the video of the interview at Camp David that I posted this morning.
I watched the video yesterday, and it included the part near the end of the video, where Bush says the following.

Quote:

"Scott, sometimes you're the commander-in-chief, sometimes you're the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war. And I've just gotta continue to take my message to the people and to explain to them this is a well-thought-out decision that is in the interests of the today's generation of Americans and tomorrow's generation of Americans. What happens in the Middle East matters to the security of this country. We learned that lesson on September the 11th. The stakes are very high, and we have got not only to stay engaged diplomatically, but we've gotta succeed in chasing down terrorists as well as helping young democracies survive."

So far the text version still includes it and is the original version of the interview.

This is the one that I noticed was removed from the video. I guess they decided to finally give up trying to connect 911 with the so "Called war In Iraq". This will be found in the last paragraph of the text, but not in the video...

"We learned that lesson on September the 11th." is no longer on the CBS video?


~VIDEO~


I will publish the whole thing here in its entirety, so it can be compared to the video on cbs.com.




SCOTT PELLEY: The war on terror, in a sense, began in this room, began in this cabin where your Cabinet meeting was held. Back then the whole country was with you. And now you seem to have lost them. Why do you think so?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Not to correct you, but the war on terror began on the streets of New York when an enemy attacked us. But you're right. We came here to plan a response. And, you know, I can remember thinking that it's gonna take a monumental effort to keep the country's attention on this war because it's an interesting dilemma for the president. On the one hand, you want them to understand we're at war. On the other hand, you want people to go about their daily lives. In other words, people can't be looking over their shoulder and seeing the next terrorist attack. And America has gone ahead. Our economy's good and people are, you know, helping their neighbors. And so I'm not that the danger the country felt after September 11th has slipped. Secondly, the Iraq War hadn't gone as well as I had hoped at this point in time. I mean, in my speech to the country I said we had good successes in 2005, and I truly believe we're gonna be in a position to reduce our presence. And then the situation changed on the ground. And people are, you know, people are discouraged. They don't approve of where we are. And so I think it's where the country is.

PELLEY: Most Americans at this point in time don't believe in this war in Iraq. They want you to get us out of there.

BUSH: I would hope they'd want us to succeed before we get out there. That's the decision I had to make. You know, Scott, I thought a lot about different options. One was doing nothing, just kind of the status quo. And I didn't think that was acceptable, and I think most Americans don't think it's acceptable. Secondly, we'd get out.

PELLEY: You actually thought about that?

BUSH: Of course I have. I think about it a lot, about different options. Listen, I've sat down with a lot of members of Congress, both parties, good decent people, who've said, "Start withdrawing now." I've thought about that, and my attitude is if we were to start withdrawing now, we'd have a crisis in our hands in Iraq. And not only in Iraq, but failure in Iraq will embolden the enemy. And the enemy is al-Qaeda and extremists. Failure in Iraq would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace. Failure in Iraq would provide safe haven, and the extremists still want to attack us. In other words, there's a lot of reasons that I know we must succeed. And so I thought long and hard about would withdrawal cause victory or cause success. And the answer is I don't believe so, and neither do a lot of experts. And so then I began to think, well, if failure's not an option and we've gotta succeed, how best to do so? And that's why I came up with the plan I did.

PELLEY You think the whole region could be in play? Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait?

BUSH: Absolutely. No question in my mind. And I know this is hard for some Americans to understand. The operative phrase that I thought made a lot of sense about this war is: if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us here. And the point I make is that what happens in the Middle East matters to the homeland. And that's different than in some past engagements. Secondly, chaos in the Middle East will empower extremists who hate America. And failure in Iraq, defeat of America, in quotes, will then embolden these extremists. They'll be able to recruit more. They'll be able to find more suiciders. They'll have resources at their availability, like energy if they were able to topple modern governments. In other words, these people have a plan. They have a vision of the world. And they intend to use murder to enact their vision. And I fully understand that. You know, some of my buddies in Texas say, “You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours? You got rid of Saddam. Just let them slug it out.” And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.

PELLEY: Instability in Iraq threatens the entire region?

BUSH: If the government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence, it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighborhoods, Sunni extremists into the Sunni neighborhoods, Kurdish separatist movements. All of which would threaten moderate people, moderate governments, and all of which will end up creating conditions that could lead to attacks here in America.

PELLEY: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?

BUSH: Well, our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran. My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. But he was a significant source of instability.
PELLEY: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, no question decisions have made things unstable. But the question is can we succeed. And I believe we can. Listen, I'd like to see stability and a unified Iraq. A young democracy will provide the stability we look for. I will tell you that if we just isolate ourselves from the Middle East and hope for the best, we will not address the conditions that had led young suiciders to get on airplanes to come and attack us in the first place.

PELLEY: You mention mistakes having been made in your speech. What mistakes are you talking about?
BUSH: You know, we've been through this before. Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, "bring them on" was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.

PELLEY: The troop levels . . .

BUSH: Could have been a mistake.

PELLEY: Could have been a mistake?

BUSH: Yeah. [General] John Abizaid, one of the planners, said in front of Congress, you know, he thought we might have needed more troops. My focus is on how to succeed. And the reason I brought up the mistakes is, one, that's the job of the commander-in-chief, and, two, I don't want people blaming our military. We got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we've asked them to do. And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions.


Continued

1 2 3 4 5


CBS)
PELLEY: Fair to say there are not enough American troops on the ground to provide security for Iraq?

BUSH: Let’s let the historians work it out. But there's not enough troops on the ground right now to provide security for Iraq, and that's why I made the decision I made.

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .

BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work necessary to get this democratic experience to survive. That's what they want.

PELLEY: You are gambling a lot, Mr. President, on the [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] al-Maliki. Why do you think that's a gamble worth making?

BUSH: Scott, I'm actually counting on the unity government of which Maliki is the head. Prime Minister Maliki and others who I talk to in the government understand that our patience is not unlimited.

PELLEY: Let’s be blunt. You're a plain speaker. Let's be blunt. What have you told Maliki he has to do?

BUSH: I told him it's time to get going. He's got to provide the troops he said he would provide inside Baghdad and we'll help him, and that's why I've called for more troops. I said: when our guys get moving along with yours, you can't get on the phone for political reasons and stop the troops from going after killers. What they'd do is, we're going after this killer, and they say, well he's, for political reasons, don't. Killer is a killer. And we expect them to go after both Shia and Sunni murderers in order to provide the security for Baghdad. We expect them to have local elections. And I expect them to do the political work necessary to help reconcile this country. But the problem is, is that the sectarian violence in Baghdad started getting out of control so they fell behind the power curve, and we need to help them get their forces in place, embed with their forces, go alongside their forces and get control of the security situation in Baghdad. And that's why I have problems with these plans to say, well, get out of Baghdad. You know, we've got people in Congress, good people, saying need to withdraw. Now's not the time to withdraw. Now's the time to help them get a hold of the situation.

PELLEY: Is Muqtada al-Sadr an enemy of the United States?

BUSH: Anybody who murders innocent people or frustrating the ambitions of the Iraqi people and the United States.

PELLEY: I was on the battlefield in Najaf when al-Sadr's people killed your United States Marines.

BUSH: Right. And we killed them, as you recall.

PELLEY: Is Muqtada al-Sadr an enemy of the United States?

BUSH: If he is ordering his people to kill Americans, he is.

PELLEY: Without al-Sadr, there's no Maliki government.

BUSH: Well, Mr. Maliki has said publicly that militia, including Jaysh al-Mahdi, will either put down their arms or will be dealt with by Iraqi and US forces. And we're gonna hold them to it.

PELLEY: You don't fear that al-Sadr's actually running the show?

BUSH: He may wanna be but, no, I don't think he is.

PELLEY: Did you see the video of Saddam Hussein's . . .

BUSH: I saw some of it.

PELLEY: . . . execution?

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: What did you think when you saw that?

BUSH: I thought it was discouraging. You know, obviously could have handled this thing a lot better. And I knew it'd be, you know, one of those incidents where it would call into doubt . . . it would create further skepticism. You know, it's important that-- that chapter of Iraqi history be closed. They could have handled it a lot better.


Continued

1 2 3 4 5


(CBS)

PELLEY: I wonder if there was also some sense of satisfaction. You've had this guy in your sights for a long time.

BUSH: Not really. Not really. I was satisfied when we captured him. I'm just not . . .revenge isn't necessarily something that causes me to react. In other words, I'm not a revengeful person. I'm glad he received the justice that was due.

PELLEY: I'm curious. How did you see the video?

BUSH: Internet.

PELLEY: You called it up on the internet and watched it?

BUSH: Somebody showed me parts of it. Yeah. I didn't wanna watch the whole thing.

PELLEY: Well, you keep saying "parts of it." What do you mean you didn't wanna watch the whole thing?

BUSH: I wasn't sure what to anticipate beyond the yelling and stuff like that. And I didn't . . .

PELLEY: You didn't wanna see him go through the trapdoor.

BUSH: Yeah. Yes. I didn't.

PELLEY: Do you believe that the House has the constitutional authority to prevent you from the troop build-up? Can they stop you?

BUSH: By not funding the troops I suspect is what you're referring to.

PELLEY: That would be one . . .

BUSH: I assume that's one of their options. I will fight that, of course. 'Cause I think when you got a soldier in harm's way, they deserve a full support. I can understand why somebody doesn't agree with my plan, and there's gonna be plenty of opinions I'm sure about that in Congress, but when our troops are there, they need to be supported.

PELLEY: The Democrat leadership says, "We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000."

BUSH: Yeah. I will resist that. That would mean that they're not willing to support a plan that I believe will work and solve the situation. Listen, we've got people criticizing this plan before it's had a chance to work. And I, therefore, think they have an extra responsibility to show us a plan that will work. In other words, they're saying, "We're not even gonna fund this thing." And they're not gonna give it a chance.

PELLEY: There's no Democrat plan.

BUSH: It doesn't look like it to me. And maybe there will be one. Now, I've listened to a lot of good folks who are Democrats who have expressed their opinions. They're just as patriotic as I am. And the interesting is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, "Well, we can't afford to fail." In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. But what's deafening is those who say "we can't afford to fail and here's the plan that will cause us not to fail." Frankly, that's not their responsibility. It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.

PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?

BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward.


Continued

1 2 3 4 5

(CBS)
PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

PELLEY: The perception, sir, more than any one of those points, is that the administration has not been straight with . . .

BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we're all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do.

PELLEY: You seem to be saying that you may have been wrong but you weren't dishonest.

BUSH: Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. I would ask people to go back and look at the comments of many of the Democrat leadership prior to my arrival in Washington, DC, people who'd looked at the same intelligence I looked at. I'd look at the people's comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at. It was pretty well universally thought he had weapons. And there was an intelligence failure, which we're trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them.

PELLEY: When was it that you first found out or it dawned on you that, indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction? And I wonder, did you think, "What have I done?"

BUSH: I wondered what went wrong, because you can't conduct this war on terror unless you've got good intelligence. And so the first thing I did was I put a commission together to take a good, hard look at what did go

PELLEY: You had to be angry as hell.

BUSH: Yeah, I wasn't happy. I don't think there was exact moment. I mean, I think when we got in there, people anticipated that we would find the weapons of mass destruction. The different reports, the different investigations, you know, those guys that went over there on behalf of the agency, they came back and made their reports pretty well, convinced me that the intelligence was wrong.

PELLEY: What should the American people look for in this war plan? When will they know whether it's working or not?

BUSH: Well, I'll know whether or not the Iraqis will do what they said they'd do here pretty quick. In other words, they said they'll commit some troops into Baghdad, more troops into Baghdad. We'll know pretty soon.
One of the interesting things is he said he would name a general to be the military governor or military commander of Baghdad. And he's done that. He, Maliki, has done that. We'll know whether or not the rules of engagement will be altered for political purposes. And so we'll have a pretty good indication pretty early.

PELLEY: We'll know in weeks?

BUSH: I'd say months as to whether or not the will is there and whether or not they're putting in the capability they said they would do.


Continued

1 2 3 4 5


(CBS)
PELLEY: Your military officers say that Iranian agents today are killing American troops on the ground in Iraq. Is that an act of war on the part of Iran against the United States?

BUSH: I think what they're saying is, is that the Iranians are providing equipment that is killing Americans. Either way it's unacceptable. As I said in my speech the other night, we will take measures to protect ourselves. We will interrupt supplies. We will find people that if they are, in fact, in Iraq killing Americans, they'll be brought to justice.
PELLEY: Is that an act of war against the United States on the part of the Iranian government?

BUSH: I'm not a lawyer. So act of war is kind of a . . . I'm not exactly sure how you define that. Let me just say it's unacceptable.

PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

BUSH: I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world. You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon. You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." And secondly, that "it's in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It's in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy." And thirdly, you know, "If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them."

PELLEY: I wonder if you feel like you've been ill-served by your Cabinet members, [Defense Secretary] Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld, perhaps even Vice-President [Dick] Cheney. Wrong on WMD. Wrong on the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. And now you're in a fix. And I wonder if you look back and wonder who let you down.

BUSH: Let me correct something on this connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That was never the case in this administration. You know, I always said we never had evidence that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on 9/11. And so I don't know who continues to say that.

PELLEY: The vice-president suggested there was a connection, not necessarily 9/11, but certainly to al-Qaeda.

BUSH: [Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi was in Iraq. But rather than debating the past, let me get back to the question.

PELLEY: Yes, sir.

BUSH: The vice-president's been a great vice-president. And Don Rumsfeld did a really find job as Secretary of Defense. Quite the contrary, I feel like this country is blessed to have those kind of people serving.

PELLEY: Vice-president involved in these war plans?

BUSH: Absolutely.

PELLEY: As much as he ever has been?

BUSH: Oh, yeah, sure. I mean, I rely upon my National Security Council, and I expect everybody to make contributions, and I expect to hear everybody's opinions. And when I make up my mind, I expect them to salute and say, "Yes, sir, Mr. President."

PELLEY: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?

BUSH: I'm gonna have to keep explaining. That's why I'm doing this interview with you. And I gotta keep explaining, one, the consequences of failure, that failure in Iraq will affect the security of the people here in the United States. And secondly, that we can succeed. And the best way to succeed at this point in time is to increase troops in Baghdad to stop the sectarian violence so that a political process, an economic process . . . so that the will of the 12 million people that voted in Iraq can be realized. Scott, sometimes you're the commander-in-chief, sometimes you're the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war. And I've just gotta continue to take my message to the people and to explain to them this is a well-thought-out decision that is in the interests of the today's generation of Americans and tomorrow's generation of Americans. What happens in the Middle East matters to the security of this country. We learned that lesson on September the 11th. The stakes are very high, and we have got not only to stay engaged diplomatically, but we've gotta succeed in chasing down terrorists as well as helping young democracies survive. What's interesting is that you got a young democracy in Lebanon being challenged. I believe there ought to be a Palestinian democracy. It is being challenged by militants. A young democracy in Afghanistan and a young democracy in Iraq, all being challenged by radicals and extremists. And they may seem like disparate elements, but they share the same vision and same philosophy, and they have the same desire to inflict damage, particularly on the United States of America. I think it's interesting that in the midst of all the troubles, that there are people who are actively fighting a form of government which is beneficial to people, and that's democracy. We are in an ideological struggle, and it's a really classic ideological struggle, and Iraq is part of it. And it's very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.


1 2 3 4 5